With reference to two volcanic events that you have studied from contrasting areas of the world, compare the ways in which volcanoes and their hazards have been managed.

The management of a volcanic hazard can help to greatly reduce the negative impacts that an eruption can have on the population surrounding the area. The eruption of Nevado del Ruiz, Columbia, on the 13^th of November 1985, led to the deaths of 23,000 people as well as 8000 people becoming homeless, and caused $7.7 billion worth of damage, equal to 20% of the country’s GDP at the time, resulting from the blast and associated hazards such as lahars. This demonstrates the large impact a volcanic eruption can have if not managed correctly. In comparison, the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland on the 19^th of April resulted in 0 associated deaths, with the majority of economic impacts being felt outside of the country due to interference with European airspace, costing the Icelandic government only $500,000 in clean-up costs, demonstrating how hazards can be reduced with careful planning.

Both eruptions displayed clear warning signs that an eruption was about to happen. In Columbia, seismic activity was noticed in the area up to a year before the event, with sulphur deposits and phreatic eruptions also occurring, leading to warnings from scientists. In Iceland, volcanic activity is monitored constantly by the Icelandic Meteorological Office, and GPS and tilt meter readings showed there was evidence of deformation 11 weeks before its first eruption, as well as over 3000 minor earthquakes recorded by seismograph, and higher levels of gases such as sulphur dioxide also highlighted through monitoring.

In Columbia, these warnings led to a hazard map being produced, however this was poorly distributed by authorities, with many people receiving a copy that included errors, and even more not receiving one at all, leading to very low public awareness of the risk that the volcano posed. This poor planning also meant that the response and rescue effort took 3 days to be organised, as authorities were not prepared. In Iceland, the public had more awareness of the risks, both due to frequency of eruption in the country, and government preparation, and therefore took these warnings more seriously. The local population were sent a text giving a 30 minute warning prior to the eruption, and 700 people were evacuated, with a further 800 vacating due to risks from flooding and lahars. Masks were distributed to reduce deaths and health problems from respiratory problems, and roads and bridges were purposefully destroyed in order to limit damage to infrastructure and the surrounding ecosystem. The large difference in the number of deaths, and economic impact can be attributed to a large extent to the hazard management practices that were in place.